* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> [210517 11:40]: > Hello, Liam! > > Apologies for my being so slow here, but just wanted to double-check my > understanding of this code. > > There appear to be two tests that execute from run_check_rcu(): > > o rcu_loop(). This appears to have RCU readers scanning the tree > while an updater is adding a single range. (Or replacing it, > as the case might be.) > > o rcu_val(). This appears to have RCU readers repeatedly reading a > given value while an updater is adding/replacing a single range. > The test complains if no one sees the new value. > > These tests appear to be the only use of threads, though perhaps the > test harness has some way of creating threads that I missed. > > Are there other tests that I should be looking for? No, those are the only ones I'm running with threads right now. I think all RCU tests are run from check_rcu() iirc. This did yield results of failures that had to be addressed so I'm somewhat confident that it's actually working. >From your wording I'm gathering I need to increase this by a lot more test cases? Thanks, Liam
